Dear pro-rapists of the conservative and masculinist camps (which tellingly do overlap quite a lot), do by all means carry on rationalizing taking your anti-feminism to the extreme of being misogynistic excusers of rape and its perpetrators. The more you try to make allowances for sexual assault, the more you dig your heels into your pro-rapist reasoning, the more you do the job of discrediting your viewpoint pretty much on your own. And, if I might be permitted to go off for the remainder of this post on a bit of a tangent, I'll have you know that it's not lost on some of us that it's the same cognitive orientation that inclines you-all to support rapists rather than victims that also predisposes you to side with rapacious capitalists rather than their working-class victims, to support a predatory socioeconomic system and status quo oriented in favor of the interests of capitalist alpha males and their penchant for raping and pillaging the planet, ravishing and brutalizing its riches, economies, and peoples.

Yep, it's no surprise at all that an insensitively pro-rapist mentality is frequently all of a piece with a pro-capitalist (euphemistically also known as a "conservative" or "libertarian") mental makeup. Mm-hmm, everyone, please do note that it's predominantly young "libertarian" males and angry white middle-aged pro-capitalist conservatives who are tellingly given to excusing or denying rape. Let's not gloss over the cognitive significance of this, of the cognitive cognateness of the pro-rapist and pro-capitalist perspectives for understanding where the right's boosterism of capitalism really comes from.

Well, to spell it out, the conservative's pro-capitalism indeed stems from and manifests a primitively masculine "rugged individualism", an identification with the archetype of the dominant masculine rugged individual in his modern incarnation of the dominant capitalist. This of course largely explains why conservatives are such inveterate apologists for capitalist fat cats and a socioeconomic system that gives them license to bend the working class over. Quite simply, the conservative's paleo, social dominance-oriented mentality relates to and throws in with the strong and the dominant, who today are of course the economically strong & dominant, i.e. the rich, and looks down on those perceived to be weak, e.g. the poor, welfare recipients, Third-World peoples, women, rape victims, et al.

Oh sure, he dissembles it behind hackneyed legitimating rhetoric about freedom and free enterprise, but subconsciously the average conservative and right-libertarian in fact has the esteem of a caveman for dominance, and it's indeed this unevolved aspect of his psychology that causes him to sometimes also sympathize with rapists, rape being an act of dominance, an assertion of power over someone weaker. Capitalists, rapists, a dominant military power such as the United States, they all represent the dominance vicariously admired by right-wingers, and it's precisely this vicarious admiration that motivates their bias and much of their politics. Yes, scratch the surface and one finds this subconscious idolization of alphaness sublimated not only in the American right-winger's staunch proponency of private property and enterprise, his defense of "men's rights", and his patriotism, but in a host of other political positions. For instance, take their position on abortion. Behind the moralistic right-to-life rhetoric is the desire of rightists to impose their social dominance on women's bodies, reproductive choices, and sexuality. The outlawing of abortion would indeed be a rape-like assertion of power (by political means) and violation of a woman's sovereignty over her body. Mm-hmm, seeking to ban abortion is ultimately just another way that the folks in the conservative camp express their need for power & dominance, another way they reveal their psychological affinity with rapists and capitalists. One could make similar observations about the "family values", law & order, pro-capital punishment, guns rights, and pro-military views of Republican types, but I won't digress.

In short and in sum, the root of the simpatico-ness of rapists, capitalists, and their conservative/"libertarian" defenders is the psychological fact that they're all what social psychologists term high on the social dominator scale individuals. Rather than getting caught up in arguing against the social dominator's sophistical logic and sanctimonious rhetoric about men's rights, capitalist's rights, fetal rights, etc., one should instead steadfastly focus on addressing the true mentality underlying their politics. Yes, always bear in mind that "conservative" and "libertarian" aren't merely terms for political affiliations, they're mentalities, of a quite unevolved and socially dangerous nature.

(This is of course a revised version of my deleted OP. This time I've refrained from naming names, and if any of you still identify with the kind of masculinist or conservative whose mentality I've critiqued and take offense, well, that's your problem.)

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Hey, masculinists & conservatives, I haven't really been all that hard on you, not once did I even use the word "overcompensating" to describe your psychology and politics!

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Yes, the OP is still just as polemical, but I haven't targeted anyone specifically, so I am attempting to play nicely, somewhat.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

I know, how dreadful of me to suggest that masculinists and right-wingers are pro-rapist, but don't be so literal-minded folks, I'm not actually claiming that they advocate, or cheer on the perpetrators of sexual assault. Read the OP before attacking me as an outrageous moron.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

At 11/9/2014 5:06:25 PM, charleslb wrote:charleslb : Yes, the OP is still just as polemical, but I haven't targeted anyone specifically, so I am attempting to play nicely, somewhat.

The Fool: Its that its not true. I have no problem targeting someone if its TRUE. But what you are saying is just too extreme, and your sentences are so tightly convoluted with loaded assumptions, yet devoid of a factual bases. Too many "seeminglies" and over the top "associative" generalizations and connotations.

I honestly think that you are too steeped in socialism, and perhaps suffered some personal experiences which have caused you to have an unrealistic world view and perception of people in general. If we are not with you all the way "we are against you", and part of the problem attitude. Rather then perhaps even naive bystanders who are just trying to make sense of the world to the best of our Knowledge.

You don't really put effort into convincing or persuading us of why we should believe you, by perhaps building an argument from a set of common ground or at least common sense premises we most likely all agree on and then work your way up to a conclusion, we may not have otherwise believed at face value. Without that you just preaching to the converted.

This is not a reasonable conversation starter.

"""Dear pro-rapists of the conservative and masculinist camps (which tellingly do overlap quite a lot), do by all means carry on rationalizing taking your anti-feminism to the extreme of being misogynistic excusers of rape and its perpetrators.""'

Against The Ideologist

It assumes that anybody who actually replies is a pro-rapist. It's so loaded that its not worth picking out all the poison.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

I hope you don't intend on receiving any sensible reply. What is your intention here?

Try making an actual argument. I only read a string of insults accompanied by the usual self-righteous pat themselves on the back users on this site love to engage in.

In short use facts and less insults.

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

I often wonder what these people look like because it is a certain type of person that types an entire rant for absolutely no reason. Let us be honest, the OP has no intention of convincing anyone. That is obvious by the insults and other inflammatory adjectives the OP used. So what is the OP intention of writing this? To make himself/herself irritated? To make other people irritated? I don't know but it is a feeble attempt at best.

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

At 11/9/2014 5:06:25 PM, charleslb wrote:charleslb : Yes, the OP is still just as polemical, but I haven't targeted anyone specifically, so I am attempting to play nicely, somewhat.

The Fool: Its that its not true. I have no problem targeting someone if its TRUE. But what you are saying is just too extreme,

Some realities and truths are in fact extreme from a conventional standpoint, ergo addressing them honestly can indeed make one's point of view sound extreme and implausible. And not being at all interested in catering to conventional sensibilities can also contribute to my tendency to sound extreme. And then of course there's the fact that I'm a communist, which in this country in and of itself is enough to get one labeled an extremist or crank. Oh well, what's one to do, moderate one's point of view in bad faith? Not this communist-feminist.

and your sentences are so tightly convoluted with loaded assumptions,

Correction, critical analyses contrary to popular opinion, not "loaded assumptions".

yet devoid of a factual bases...

Not true. For instance, there's scientific support for my analysis of the dominance-oriented nature of the rightist mentality. Are you familiar with the work of University of Manitoba Professor Bob Altemeyer? Have you perhaps read conservative John Dean's book on the psychological makeup of his fellow conservative Republicans?

Steeped, yes. Too steeped? Well, that would suggest that I'm something of an unreasoning dogmatist, which isn't at all the case. In fact I'm a communist freethinker to such an extent that many of my views are unacceptable to more orthodox Marxists.

and perhaps suffered some personal experiences which have caused you to have an unrealistic world view and perception of people in general.

I have no problem with someone attempting to psychoanalyze me, turnabout being fair play, but you're simply quite, quite far from being spot on here.

If we are not with you all the way "we are against you", and part of the problem attitude.

Nope, this is not my mentality at all. Yes, I do tend to get good-naturedly contentious with critics, but not with people who merely and politely disagree with my views.

Rather then perhaps even naive bystanders who are just trying to make sense of the world to the best of our Knowledge.

I'm in fact never hard on anyone who merely fits this description.

You don't really put effort into convincing or persuading us of why we should believe you, by perhaps building an argument from a set of common ground or at least common sense premises we most likely all agree on and then work your way up to a conclusion, we may not have otherwise believed at face value. Without that you just preaching to the converted.

It sounds rather like you're trying to rationalize blaming, or putting the burden of being a super-reasonable communicator, on the victim of closed-mindedness. How about assigning a tad bit of responsibility to my critics, who tend to be either ideological conservatives & "libertarians" or simply locked into conventional thinking and given to reflexively balking at a radical point of view?

This is not a reasonable conversation starter.

"""Dear pro-rapists of the conservative and masculinist camps (which tellingly do overlap quite a lot), do by all means carry on rationalizing taking your anti-feminism to the extreme of being misogynistic excusers of rape and its perpetrators.""'

Well, yes, this is obviously meant to be polemical.

Against The Ideologist

It assumes that anybody who actually replies is a pro-rapist.

Nope, it's indeed a generalization about conservatives & masculinists, but not about anyone who replies to the OP.

It's so loaded that its not worth picking out all the poison.

Well, if one goes on to read the rest of the post one will find substantive points to respond to.

Now then, having discussed me at length shall we move on to discussing some of the points that I make in the OP? Wouldn't that be more interesting?

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

I often wonder what these people look like because it is a certain type of person that types an entire rant for absolutely no reason. Let us be honest, the OP has no intention of convincing anyone. That is obvious by the insults and other inflammatory adjectives the OP used. So what is the OP intention of writing this? To make himself/herself irritated? To make other people irritated? I don't know but it is a feeble attempt at best.

Okay, so you find the OP too provocative. I've heard that one before, care to share any thoughts on any of the points that I make in my critique, or did you just feel the need to comment on my style of self-expression?

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

I often wonder what these people look like because it is a certain type of person that types an entire rant for absolutely no reason. Let us be honest, the OP has no intention of convincing anyone. That is obvious by the insults and other inflammatory adjectives the OP used. So what is the OP intention of writing this? To make himself/herself irritated? To make other people irritated? I don't know but it is a feeble attempt at best.

Okay, so you find the OP too provocative. I've heard that one before, care to share any thoughts on any of the points that I make in my critique, or did you just feel the need to comment on my style of self-expression?

I disagree with your premise. You have an assumption that human beings have an obligation to other human beings. I disagree with this profusely because the fact is no one can control anyone else or any other living creature for that matter. Your premise to all your points above is that human beings have an obligation to each other to which I have no agreement with at all. You also have a series of other assumptions that I disagree with as well but this is the most notable. You are making moral arguments when I am interested in practical arguments. Therefore all points are contended.

NOTE: I am not a libertarian or a conservative so I don't fit your caricature. I am far too anti-ideological and anti-idealistic to subscribe such panaceas. I will leave that to people who believe in nirvana where everyone sings and dances(LOL).

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

The Fool: It's that it's not true. I have no problem targeting someone if it's TRUE. But what you are saying is just too extreme,

Charleslb:: Some realities and truths are in fact extreme from a conventional standpoint, ergo addressing them honestly can indeed make one's point of view sound extreme and implausible. And not being at all interested in catering to conventional sensibilities can also contribute to my tendency to sound extreme.

The Fool: It sucks but there is a way that we have to cater, because people can't see what you see. You may be right, but if there is no way for us to know it, how does that help anybody.

Charleslb: And then of course there's the fact that I'm a communist, which in this country in and of itself is enough to get one labeled an extremist or crank. Oh well, what's one to do, moderate one's point of view in bad faith? Not this communist-feminist.

The Fool: One should remain fluid or at least try an see your position as temporary and avoid labels when you can, because they also serve to lock us in positions that blind us.

The problem is that by identifying yourself as a communist-feminist, even to yourself, there is a sense you may feel you have to live up to this position. Slowly we start to take attacks on that position as attacks on ourselves, and over time there can become this kind of melding where defending the position is like trying to survive, and we can get pretty desperate and misguided to the point where we become blind and in denial of the actual facts.

The more we invest our time effort in a position, the stronger we see it as a part of who we are. But what if it really isn't the "best" position?

I mean we adhere to certain positions because we really think it is Best. Right? What if it's not the best.

There must also be an adequate degrees of "freedom"; some room for experimentation and error if you will. Otherwise progress comes to a grinding halt, with no room to move. It doesn't necessary matter how naturally intelligent you are. It's like a self-socialization(conditioning), and it very easy to fall into this vicious cycle of "believe fixation", especially when you are too surrounded with people who agree with you. Now you may be around people with different beliefs here, but what are you doing when you're not here? Are you only reading your own side.

Eating to much of ones own shlt is unhealthy.<(86)

It's how we get extreme views and we don't even realize how unrealistic we are being. I don't mean it as an insult but that is honestly how I see your position.

I am guilty of this sometime myself, and the internet makes it even easier because we can get our information from the bias sources and not even now it. We all what to hear what we want to hear.

Most news sites have a political slant or a particular underlying agenda. A Feminist media platform will only say things in support of Feminism an only bad things about MRA, and sometimes even go as far as trying to convince the world that Feminism, is the only word on Gender issues, and that either you are a Feminist or you are Anti-equality. Some Feminist sites are brutality and shamelessly dishonest. So if you don't switch it up, you develop polarized and exaggerated beliefs of one side of the sorry. It doesn't help that searches, and media sources like "youtube", will keep feeding you media similar to previous searches, like a "tube" from ones as-s to their mouth.

My current excuse for leaning on the MRA side is my critical thinking education background, and well Feminist dominate most platforms, have monopoly on academia and gender research, and they are a powerful propaganda machine. It's so ingrained in our culture we are generally blind to the how bias it is, It's even gets away with convincing us that media in general is actually bias against it. If Feminist is a negative label well, MRA is dead wrong. MRA is hardly 2% the size of Feminism. We just have Rationality on our side.<(8D)

And well, modern technology allows the movement to surface much faster than the Feminist movement could have ever arisen. But its a two way street.

My General Political Position One may argue that, well, communalism in that way is a kind of conservatism in itself. We all want it to be the "final answer", but the final answer may be ever ongoing.

Conservatives general want to be done with change, they may feel they know what is needed to know already, often because they feel they know God. Right? So if they just listen to him, there is nothing left to really do, but spread the word. Right? While Progressives want to change, but often in a way that causes too much destabilization, with high collateral damage, and perhaps even bad changes. But we want "good" changes, not just "radical" change. Right? Slower change allows us to make more reasonable predictions, and better decisions preventing the harm of innocent people in the meantime. Panic, hysteria and massive propaganda create lots of ERROR. Approach is everything.

So I don't see it being all about change, change, change, but GOOD change. Not simply "change". We can only go so fast before we just start oppressing another set of individuals. Which defeats the purpose? Right? And the more injustice the more hard feelings and backlash there will be. I have only taken one political philosophy, course aside from many philosophy course which happen to contain politics. And well moral reasoning, ethics, and advanced ethics.

I haven't spent too much time on politics, persay. We don't talk nearly as much about politics in Canada

I guess if I was forced to choose I guess I am a liberal, I tend to generally agree with Bill Maher's political views. I value Freedom. A little bit of risk is okay. Socialism-Feminism is too limiting on our day to day lives. It's tries to control everything from music, to movies, to video games, to dress, to where we look, to how we look, to what we like, to what we love, to what we can laugh at, to what we can think, feel and say. Even how we have sex. Taken to its logical conclusion, it's not only anti-diversity, but absolute Anti-Freedom.

Against The Ideologist

I don't know how this makes me pro-rape though.<(89)

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

I often wonder what these people look like because it is a certain type of person that types an entire rant for absolutely no reason. Let us be honest, the OP has no intention of convincing anyone. That is obvious by the insults and other inflammatory adjectives the OP used. So what is the OP intention of writing this? To make himself/herself irritated? To make other people irritated? I don't know but it is a feeble attempt at best.

Okay, so you find the OP too provocative. I've heard that one before, care to share any thoughts on any of the points that I make in my critique, or did you just feel the need to comment on my style of self-expression?

I disagree with your premise. You have an assumption that human beings have an obligation to other human beings. I disagree with this profusely because the fact is no one can control anyone else or any other living creature for that matter. Your premise to all your points above is that human beings have an obligation to each other to which I have no agreement with at all. You also have a series of other assumptions that I disagree with as well but this is the most notable. You are making moral arguments when I am interested in practical arguments. Therefore all points are contended.

NOTE: I am not a libertarian or a conservative so I don't fit your caricature. I am far too anti-ideological and anti-idealistic to subscribe such panaceas. I will leave that to people who believe in nirvana where everyone sings and dances(LOL).

I see, so I'm not the only one with what conventional-minded folks would consider an outre, outlandish, crackpot point of view, you in fact subscribe to an outlook that's arguably even more extreme and eccentric than my communist perspective, i.e. that human beings have no kind of moral obligation to give a damn about their neighbor. Indeed, the amoralism of your worldview departs much more radically from the ethical conceptualities and norms of every society that has existed in human history than any of the commie ideas and ideals that I've ever put forward. In fact the core morality of my communism, i.e. a recognition of the ontological and social interrelatedness and interdependence of all human beings and things and the mutual ethical obligations that this ontological truth deontologically enjoins, is also the essence of conventional morality (I simply advocate applying it more inclusively, i.e. to the economic sphere of life where currently the amoralism of capitalism is the norm). That is, morally speaking my communism isn't all that bizarre. However your notion that human beings have no obligation whatsoever to each other definitely makes you more eligible to be consigned to the category of wacko than me. So, in short, thank you for making me look less far-out and kooky and for voluntarily discrediting your own hostile point of view on the OP. This was really quite obliging of you.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Charleslb: Dear pro-rapists of the conservative and masculinist camps (which tellingly do overlap quite a lot), do by all means carry on rationalizing taking your anti-feminism to the extreme of being misogynistic excusers of rape and its perpetrators.

The Fool: I am not sure what you mean by masculinity. It"s a slander to an MRA. They reason why its MRM, as appose to Masculism is because ISM Pre-supposes an Ideology. But there is no MRA Ideology like Feminist Theory is to Feminism.

Even believing in "equal rights" is not really an Ideology persay, it's just a singular belief, like believing in happiness, is not really an Ideology. Marxism is an Ideology..

A religion is a type of Ideology, while simply believing that their exist a God, or not. Is not really an Ideology.

Charleslb: The more you try to make allowances for sexual assault, the more you dig your heels into your pro-rapist reasoning, the more you do the job of discrediting your viewpoint pretty much on your own.

The Fool: This would be circular and redundant to the first sentence, because it starts off with "Dear Pro-rapist. "

Charleslb: And, if I might be permitted to go off for the remainder of this post on a bit of a tangent, I'll have you know that it's not lost on some of us that it's the same cognitive orientation that inclines you-all to support rapists rather than victims that also predisposes you to side with rapacious capitalists rather than their working-class victims, to support a predatory socioeconomic system and status quo oriented in favor of the interests of capitalist alpha males and their penchant for raping and pillaging the planet, ravishing and brutalizing its riches, economies, and peoples.

The Fool: So according to your own reasoning, your post, which is polemic, and thus predatory and aggressive can just as well be considered a cognitive orientation that supports "raping and pillaging the planet, ravishing and brutalizing its riches, economies, and peoples." It's completely self-refuting. It's non-sense. Somebody who would steal a bike is not necessary someone who would rape someone. When you use the term rape, carelessly it loses its meaning. Just like calling somebody a misogynist is almost hard to take seriously anymore. The terms has been so abused that its losing its meaning.

Charleslb: Yep, it's no surprise at all that an insensitively pro-rapist mentality is frequently all of a piece with a pro-capitalist (euphemistically also known as a "conservative" or "libertarian") mental makeup.

The Fool: I refuted this already.

Charleslb: Mm-hmm, everyone, please do note that it's predominantly young "libertarian" males and angry white middle-aged pro-capitalist conservatives who are tellingly given to excusing or denying rape.

The Fool: Dude, this is racist. It doesn't matter if it"s a currently accepted racism. It's also obvious that you left out the race on" liberal" to include me.

Charleslb: Let's not gloss over the cognitive significance of this, of the cognitive cognateness of the pro-rapist and pro-capitalist perspectives for understanding where the right's boosterism of capitalism really comes from.

The Fool: This is redundant, and false anyway.

Charleslb: Well, to spell it out, the conservative's pro-capitalism indeed stems from and manifests a primitively masculine "rugged individualism", an identification with the archetype of the dominant masculine rugged individual in his modern incarnation of the dominant capitalist.

The Fool: It"s not a fact. It may stem from many things and many things may stem from a masculine rugged individual.

Charleslb: This of course largely explains why conservatives are such inveterate apologists for capitalist fat cats and a socioeconomic system that gives them license to bend the working class over.

The Fool: It really doesn't explain that.

Charleslb: Quite simply, the conservative's paleo, social dominance-oriented mentality relates to and throws in with the strong and the dominant, who today are of course the economically strong & dominant, i.e. the rich, and looks down on those perceived to be weak, e.g. the poor, welfare recipients, Third-World peoples, women, rape victims, et al.

The Fool: This just sounds like many years of built up "hate".

Look "Social Dominance" is obscure, but let's say it mean controlling or ruling society. You can have good or benevolent rulers, right? I mean those who vote for Obama do so because they believe he makes a "good president" right. ?

Charleslb: but subconsciously the average conservative and right-libertarian in fact has the esteem of a caveman for dominance, and it's indeed this unevolved aspect of his psychology that causes him to sometimes also sympathize with rapists, rape being an act of dominance, an assertion of power over someone weaker.

'.The Fool: Accusation of your opponents subconscious mental states is a "no no". Subconscious mental states are even very controversial in psychology. They are more popular POP psychology, then actually psychology.Why, because nor you nor them could know what they are thinking subconsciously by what it means to be subconscious, since well it's not observable by ether party. Especially nothing complex. We may see activity in the brain, before a thought surfaces, but can hardly make any sophisticated prediction or mind mapping, since well, everybody stores information differently

Feminist constructs like "Internalized misogyny" are highly controversial and not even really science. It's extremely manipulative, they are Ideological assumption that should be nowhere near science. One they l their hegemony, in academia there is going to be some changes.

Charleslb: Capitalists, rapists, a dominant military power such as the United States, they all represent the dominance vicariously admired by right-wingers, and it's precisely this vicarious admiration that motivates their bias and much of their politics.

The Fool: You see this is non-sense. You sound like some preaching dictator preparing his troops before war.

Against The Ideologist

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

Charleslb: Yes, scratch the surface and one finds this subconscious idolization of alphaness sublimated not only in the American right-winger's staunch proponency of private property and enterprise, his defense of "men's rights", and his patriotism, but in a host of other political positions. For instance, take their position on abortion. Behind the moralistic right-to-life rhetoric is the desire of rightists to impose their social dominance on women's bodies, reproductive choices, and sexuality.

The Fool: Now I am for abortion under most circumstances. But I think there is an argument to be made if one sincerely believes, like many religious people truly think the fetus is a human life. And if we grant them that it is child, I could see why to them the mother ought be obligated, to save its life, if she wasn't raped and if she is a healthy woman. Just like I would be obligated to save that mothers life if the situation arose, where I was the only one who could do it.

Charleslb: The outlawing of abortion would indeed be a rape-like assertion of power (by political means) and violation of a woman's sovereignty over her body.

The Fool: I completely disagree with the feminist ideological justifications.

My personal view is that"s it"s a child when it becomes conscious, and if it reached that point then unless it will kill her she is obligated to save her own child.

Charleslb: Mm-hmm, seeking to ban abortion is ultimately just another way that the folks in the conservative camp express their need for power & dominance, another way they reveal their psychological affinity with rapists and capitalists. One could make similar observations about the "family values", law & order, pro-capital punishment, guns rights, and pro-military views of Republican types, but I won't digress.

The Fool: Conservatives are usually against abortion for religious reason, not for the sake of control.

Charleslb: In short and in sum, the root of the simpatico-ness of rapists, capitalists, and their conservative/"libertarian" defenders is the psychological fact that they're all what social psychologists term high on the social dominator scale individuals.

The Fool: You know nothing about psychology. I have a degree in Cognitive science.

Charleslb: Rather than getting caught up in arguing against the social dominator's sophistical logic and sanctimonious rhetoric about men's rights, capitalist's rights, fetal rights, etc., one should instead steadfastly focus on addressing the true mentality underlying their politics.

The Fool: This is Irrational. You know nothing about MRA so stop trying to demonize it. I don't mind if it's true facts, but your are just trying to lump it in, because it runs contrast to your world view. If you have a particular MRA argument you don't agree with bring it up. But we can reason about rape till our hearts content because its an MRA issue. So fvch off with that.

Charleslb: Yes, always bear in mind that "conservative" and "libertarian" aren't merely terms for political affiliations, they're mentalities, of a quite unevolved and socially dangerous nature.

The Fool: Lol What?

Against The Ideologist.

You owe me big time. I am never doing something like that again though.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

The Fool: It's that it's not true. I have no problem targeting someone if it's TRUE. But what you are saying is just too extreme,

Charleslb:: Some realities and truths are in fact extreme from a conventional standpoint, ergo addressing them honestly can indeed make one's point of view sound extreme and implausible. And not being at all interested in catering to conventional sensibilities can also contribute to my tendency to sound extreme.

The Fool: It sucks but there is a way that we have to cater, because people can't see what you see. You may be right, but if there is no way for us to know it, how does that help anybody.

Yes, if one comes on too strong or is too inflammatory one is sometimes perhaps not being the best communicator.

Charleslb: And then of course there's the fact that I'm a communist, which in this country in and of itself is enough to get one labeled an extremist or crank. Oh well, what's one to do, moderate one's point of view in bad faith? Not this communist-feminist.

The Fool: One should remain fluid or at least try an see your position as temporary and avoid labels when you can, because they also serve to lock us in positions that blind us.

My views, primarily some of my metaphysical and theological views, have in fact evolved over the years. My thinking is certainly not as static and ideologically hidebound as you seem to think.

The problem is that by identifying yourself as a communist-feminist, even to yourself, there is a sense you may feel you have to live up to this position. Slowly we start to take attacks on that position as attacks on ourselves, and over time there can become this kind of melding where defending the position is like trying to survive, and we can get pretty desperate and misguided to the point where we become blind and in denial of the actual facts.

Yes, I'm not terribly fond of labels either. But if I walk and quack like a communist-feminist duck I'm not going to shy away entirely from calling myself a communist and feminist and be accused of concealing the true nature of my point of view.

The more we invest our time effort in a position, the stronger we see it as a part of who we are. But what if it really isn't the "best" position?

This is why one must cultivate the skill and habit of critical thinking.

I mean we adhere to certain positions because we really think it is Best. Right? What if it's not the best.

Hopefully one's critical thinking and critical self-examination will eventually lead one to a recognition of the flaws of an unenlightened position.

... Now you may be around people with different beliefs here, but what are you doing when you're not here? Are you only reading your own side.

No.

Eating to much of ones own shlt is unhealthy.

Yes.

It's how we get extreme views and we don't even realize how unrealistic we are being. I don't mean it as an insult but that is honestly how I see your position.

I appreciate honesty, even when someone's criticism is off the mark.

I am guilty of this sometime myself, and the internet makes it even easier because we can get our information from the bias sources and not even now it. We all what to hear what we want to hear.

Yes, relying on excessively biased sources (there's no such animal as a perfectly unbiased source) for information is a rather bad idea.

Most news sites have a political slant or a particular underlying agenda. A Feminist media platform will only say things in support of Feminism an only bad things about MRA, and sometimes even go as far as trying to convince the world that Feminism, is the only word on Gender issues, and that either you are a Feminist or you are Anti-equality. Some Feminist sites are brutality and shamelessly dishonest. So if you don't switch it up, you develop polarized and exaggerated beliefs of one side of the sorry. It doesn't help that searches, and media sources like "youtube", will keep feeding you media similar to previous searches, like a "tube" from ones as-s to their mouth.

I'm aware that you have your issues with feminism. Are you aware that they sometimes make you look like a bit of a crackpot in rather the same fashion that my issues with capitalism make me look loony? Judge not, lest ye be judged, and all that

My current excuse for leaning on the MRA side is my critical thinking education background, and well Feminist dominate most platforms, have monopoly on academia and gender research, and they are a powerful propaganda machine.

Some of us have also engaged in some critical thinking and come to the conclusion that the feminist point of view is correct and enlightened.

It's so ingrained in our culture we are generally blind to the how bias it is,

Every point of view is a bias, but not all biases are created equal, some are benighted and bigoted while others are enlightened and reasonable.

It's even gets away with convincing us that media in general is actually bias against it. If Feminist is a negative label well, MRA is dead wrong. MRA is hardly 2% the size of Feminism. We just have Rationality on our side.

So you claim.

And well, modern technology allows the movement to surface much faster than the Feminist movement could have ever arisen. But its a two way street.

My General Political Position One may argue that, well, communalism in that way is a kind of conservatism in itself. We all want it to be the "final answer", but the final answer may be ever ongoing.

Conservatives general want to be done with change, they may feel they know what is needed to know already, often because they feel they know God. Right? So if they just listen to him, there is nothing left to really do, but spread the word. Right? While Progressives want to change, but often in a way that causes too much destabilization, with high collateral damage, and perhaps even bad changes. But we want "good" changes, not just "radical" change. Right? Slower change allows us to make more reasonable predictions, and better decisions preventing the harm of innocent people in the meantime. Panic, hysteria and massive propaganda create lots of ERROR. Approach is everything.

So I don't see it being all about change, change, change, but GOOD change. Not simply "change". We can only go so fast before we just start oppressing another set of individuals. Which defeats the purpose? Right? And the more injustice the more hard feelings and backlash there will be. I have only taken one political philosophy, course aside from many philosophy course which happen to contain politics. And well moral reasoning, ethics, and advanced ethics.

"Conservatism" is actually quite the misnomer, as it's not at all about being conservative in a dictionary sense of the word, or one's attitude toward change. The philosopher Ted Honderich makes an excellent and thorough case for this opinion, https://cdn.anonfiles.com...

I haven't spent too much time on politics, persay. We don't talk nearly as much about politics in Canada

Yes, Canada is a more advanced society (yes, I mean this, I'm not being sarcastic - for one thing Canada is evolved enough to have done away with the death penalty)

I guess if I was forced to choose I guess I am a liberal,

Well, then we do in fact share some values, as I'm a democratic and one might say a liberal communist. And no, I'm not being at all oxymoronic.

Any thoughts on any of the specific points of the OP?

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Charleslb: Yes, scratch the surface and one finds this subconscious idolization of alphaness sublimated not only in the American right-winger's staunch proponency of private property and enterprise, his defense of "men's rights", and his patriotism, but in a host of other political positions. For instance, take their position on abortion. Behind the moralistic right-to-life rhetoric is the desire of rightists to impose their social dominance on women's bodies, reproductive choices, and sexuality.

The Fool: Now I am for abortion under most circumstances. But I think there is an argument to be made if one sincerely believes, like many religious people truly think the fetus is a human life. And if we grant them that it is child, I could see why to them the mother ought be obligated, to save its life, if she wasn't raped and if she is a healthy woman. Just like I would be obligated to save that mothers life if the situation arose, where I was the only one who could do it.

Charleslb: The outlawing of abortion would indeed be a rape-like assertion of power (by political means) and violation of a woman's sovereignty over her body.

The Fool: I completely disagree with the feminist ideological justifications.

Correction, you disagree with academic feminist thinking that's antithetical to your own point of view. Well, that's your prerogative.

My personal view is that"s it"s a child when it becomes conscious, and if it reached that point then unless it will kill her she is obligated to save her own child.

So you indeed think that it would be legitimate to severely restrict the access of women to abortion.

Charleslb: Mm-hmm, seeking to ban abortion is ultimately just another way that the folks in the conservative camp express their need for power & dominance, another way they reveal their psychological affinity with rapists and capitalists. One could make similar observations about the "family values", law & order, pro-capital punishment, guns rights, and pro-military views of Republican types, but I won't digress.

The Fool: Conservatives are usually against abortion for religious reason, not for the sake of control.

Their moralistic-theological reasons in fact ideologize, i.e. conceal, their social dominance orientation.

Charleslb: In short and in sum, the root of the simpatico-ness of rapists, capitalists, and their conservative/"libertarian" defenders is the psychological fact that they're all what social psychologists term high on the social dominator scale individuals.

The Fool: You know nothing about psychology.

Hmm, so is it your belief as someone who holds a degree in cognitive science that a layman's psychological insights can't sometimes trump those of a professional?

I have a degree in Cognitive science.

Jolly good for you, but don't think that this legitimately privileges your viewpoint to greater credibility.

Charleslb: Rather than getting caught up in arguing against the social dominator's sophistical logic and sanctimonious rhetoric about men's rights, capitalist's rights, fetal rights, etc., one should instead steadfastly focus on addressing the true mentality underlying their politics.

The Fool: This is Irrational. You know nothing about MRA so stop trying to demonize it. I don't mind if it's true facts, but your are just trying to lump it in, because it runs contrast to your world view. If you have a particular MRA argument you don't agree with bring it up. But we can reason about rape till our hearts content because its an MRA issue. So fvch off with that.

Don't get so testy.

Charleslb: Yes, always bear in mind that "conservative" and "libertarian" aren't merely terms for political affiliations, they're mentalities, of a quite unevolved and socially dangerous nature.

The Fool: Lol What?

Well, "conservatism" and "libertarianism" essentially ideologize (conceal and rationalize) the "conservative's" and "libertarian's" underlying social dominance-oriented and egoistically individualistic mentalities.

Against The Ideologist.

You owe me big time. I am never doing something like that again though.

Thank you, and I'm sorry that you found it to be such a terribly arduous experience.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 11/10/2014 1:27:22 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:Only A Fool Part 2

It's not proof read, it's too long.

Charleslb: Dear pro-rapists of the conservative and masculinist camps (which tellingly do overlap quite a lot), do by all means carry on rationalizing taking your anti-feminism to the extreme of being misogynistic excusers of rape and its perpetrators.

The Fool: I am not sure what you mean by masculinity. It"s a slander to an MRA. They reason why its MRM, as appose to Masculism is because ISM Pre-supposes an Ideology. But there is no MRA Ideology like Feminist Theory is to Feminism.

Even believing in "equal rights" is not really an Ideology persay, it's just a singular belief, like believing in happiness, is not really an Ideology. Marxism is an Ideology..

Having a well-defined point of view doesn't necessarily make one dogmatic, and vice versa. That is, one can indeed be a dogmatist without having a formal, well-formulated ideology.

A religion is a type of Ideology, while simply believing that their exist a God, or not. Is not really an Ideology.

Thanks, but you don't really need to clarify the concept of ideology for me.

Charleslb: The more you try to make allowances for sexual assault, the more you dig your heels into your pro-rapist reasoning, the more you do the job of discrediting your viewpoint pretty much on your own.

The Fool: This would be circular and redundant to the first sentence, because it starts off with "Dear Pro-rapist. "

Well, starting off with "Dear pro-rapists of the conservative and masculinist camps" hardly renders the above bit circular.

Charleslb: And, if I might be permitted to go off for the remainder of this post on a bit of a tangent, I'll have you know that it's not lost on some of us that it's the same cognitive orientation that inclines you-all to support rapists rather than victims that also predisposes you to side with rapacious capitalists rather than their working-class victims, to support a predatory socioeconomic system and status quo oriented in favor of the interests of capitalist alpha males and their penchant for raping and pillaging the planet, ravishing and brutalizing its riches, economies, and peoples.

The Fool: So according to your own reasoning, your post, which is polemic, and thus predatory and aggressive can just as well be considered a cognitive orientation that supports "raping and pillaging the planet, ravishing and brutalizing its riches, economies, and peoples." It's completely self-refuting. It's non-sense.

You're merely engaging in a bit of twisted reasoning here to attempt to turn the table on me.

Somebody who would steal a bike is not necessary someone who would rape someone. When you use the term rape, carelessly it loses its meaning. Just like calling somebody a misogynist is almost hard to take seriously anymore. The terms has been so abused that its losing its meaning.

Don't be so literal-minded. Rape is a power and dominance-oriented behavior, and the behavior and mentality that rationalizes it does indeed manifest in ways other than sexual assault.

Charleslb: Yep, it's no surprise at all that an insensitively pro-rapist mentality is frequently all of a piece with a pro-capitalist (euphemistically also known as a "conservative" or "libertarian") mental makeup.

The Fool: I refuted this already.

Oh really.

Charleslb: Mm-hmm, everyone, please do note that it's predominantly young "libertarian" males and angry white middle-aged pro-capitalist conservatives who are tellingly given to excusing or denying rape.

The Fool: Dude, this is racist. It doesn't matter if it"s a currently accepted racism.

Nope, it's an accurate generalization. And it's in fact no more racist than accurately generalizing that more Chinese people work in Chinese restaurants than people of Portuguese or Polish descent.

It's also obvious that you left out the race on" liberal" to include me.

I have no interest in your race.

Charleslb: Let's not gloss over the cognitive significance of this, of the cognitive cognateness of the pro-rapist and pro-capitalist perspectives for understanding where the right's boosterism of capitalism really comes from.

The Fool: This is redundant, and false anyway.

I disagree.

Charleslb: Well, to spell it out, the conservative's pro-capitalism indeed stems from and manifests a primitively masculine "rugged individualism", an identification with the archetype of the dominant masculine rugged individual in his modern incarnation of the dominant capitalist.

The Fool: It"s not a fact. It may stem from many things and many things may stem from a masculine rugged individual.

Call it a strong and frequently empirically verified suspicion.

Charleslb: This of course largely explains why conservatives are such inveterate apologists for capitalist fat cats and a socioeconomic system that gives them license to bend the working class over.

The Fool: It really doesn't explain that.

Sure it does. You're just resistant to finding any merit in my analysis.

Charleslb: Quite simply, the conservative's paleo, social dominance-oriented mentality relates to and throws in with the strong and the dominant, who today are of course the economically strong & dominant, i.e. the rich, and looks down on those perceived to be weak, e.g. the poor, welfare recipients, Third-World peoples, women, rape victims, et al.

The Fool: This just sounds like many years of built up "hate".

"Hate" in this instance is a word that you're using to delegitimate my point of view. I would simply say that I find the dominance-oriented mentality highly unlikeable.

Look "Social Dominance" is obscure, but let's say it mean controlling or ruling society. You can have good or benevolent rulers, right? I mean those who vote for Obama do so because they believe he makes a "good president" right. ?

A rather feeble attempt to validate the right's social dominance orientation.

Charleslb: but subconsciously the average conservative and right-libertarian in fact has the esteem of a caveman for dominance, ...

'.The Fool: Accusation of your opponents subconscious mental states is a "no no". Subconscious mental states are even very controversial in psychology. They are more popular POP psychology, then actually psychology.

Yes, I suppose the casual use of the word "subconscious" opened me up for such a comeback. But rightists do quite often reveal their underlying psychology so it's quite legitimate to comment on it.

Why, because nor you nor them could know what they are thinking subconsciously by what it means to be subconscious, since well it's not observable by ether party. Especially nothing complex. We may see activity in the brain, before a thought surfaces, but can hardly make any sophisticated prediction or mind mapping, since well, everybody stores information differently

Feminist constructs like "Internalized misogyny" are highly controversial and not even really science...

This doesn't mean that they lack merit.

Charleslb: Capitalists, rapists, a dominant military power such as the United States, they all represent the dominance vicariously admired by right-wingers, and it's precisely this vicarious admiration that motivates their bias and much of their politics.

The Fool: You see this is non-sense. You sound like some preaching dictator preparing his troops before war.

Oh my.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

The negative response of masculinists and conservatives to feminism on account of it constituting a threat to the continuation of male dominance; the "ruggedly individualistic" male's and conservative's defense of the alleged entitlement of capitalists to dominantingly own the means of production, to thereby dominate working and poor people (which can include subjecting women in the workplace to sexual harassment, another bit of bad behavior that masculinists and conservatives make light of and excuse with telltale insensitivity), to dominate the Third-World by keeping it economically dependent, and to dominate the planet in a ruthless fashion that's ruining the environment; the tendency of angry white men and conservatives with a dominance-oriented mentality to rationalize a racist status quo and the racist attitudes that support white dominance; the tendency of MRAs and right-wingers to be apologists for forms of dominance-oriented male behavior such as war and rape; the yearning of conservative men to dominate women by denying them access to legal abortions, and so on; all of these responses, tendencies, and political stances of masculinists and conservatives seem to obviously have something in common, namely they all seem to stem from a primitively dominance-oriented cognitive orientation that's quite prevalent among manly men types and conservatives. And yet for me to point this out is considered slanderously outlandish and something to be automatically laughed out of court. MRAs and conservatives can decry a so-called "feminist inquisition" and "rape culture" for being critical of dominance-oriented behavior that their mentality condones, but I'm the extremist! Well, it's clear that MRAs and conservatives have simply done a quite effective job of promoting and spreading their bias.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Is my OP just a piece of unprovoked polemicism? Well, perhaps some of you haven't been following the threads in the society section and are unaware of the number of threads in which certain individuals have been engaging in casuistical reasoning about rape from a masculinist perspective. This, in fact, is what provoked me to write the OP.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

I was so flattered that you thought of me and gave me a "personal invitation" that I decided to come and TRY to give some kind of response. The problem is, there's really no actual argument here for me to refute, Charles. I'm not a conservative, "right-winger", libertarian, or capitalist. Although I do agree with SOME things that some of those groups might say (and some things liberals might say), I am an independent and very strongly so. Although I think that your position on those groups are ridiculous, unfounded, and a tad crazy and I obviously disagree that they support rape at all or some kind of domination in any way that other political parties do not, I still refuse to take the position of defending a political stance that I do not fully agree with (or, at least, mostly agree with) in the first place. It's like if someone said that the Catholic church is run by aliens from the planet "Nano-krypto-klalak". I obviously would disagree with such an insane claim that I've really seen no evidence for (and wouldn't really have interest in either way), but since I'm not really Catholic, I feel no need to spend much time defending them. Since practically your whole post is in regard to a political party that I do not belong to and do not fully support, I cannot reasonably be expected to respond in its defense.

Now to your claim that all those political groups, "pro-lifers", and MRAs are all one and the same and stand for the same things, well that's also false. Not only am I personally NOT a conservative, capitalist, libertarian, or "right-winger" (but do support the MHRM as far as I understand its actual goals and intentions), but I've also already linked you to a survey in another thread which showed the exact opposite of your claims and that showed MRAs belonging to differing genders/sexualities/political stances/ages/etc. Conservatism, capitalism, and libertarianism are groups that deal with social, political, and economical structures and organization. "Pro-lifers" are people who are against abortion on some level (although not always completely). MRAs deal with issues of human rights and gender equality (most frequently, but not always, as it pertains to all men and boys). Anti-feminism simply means that you disagree with feminism as it exists and is practiced today, whether fully or only in part. A person can belong to one of these groups and none of the others. A person can belong to some of these groups and not the rest. A person can probably belong to all of these groups, but the truth is that there is no "secret conspiracy" to align all of these groups to hate women and support rape and none of these groups actually hate women or support rape in any way that I've seen. Are you aware that there are actually some people who currently associate with feminism and the MHRM? (Usually they are the "equity feminists". Some of the "equity feminists" are pretty good people in my personal opinion.) It's because not all MRAs are even anti-feminists! I could even personally support feminism IF I actually believed that it stood for true gender-egalitarianism (although i would probably not be a feminist myself, I would simply be a gender-egalitarian).

Basically, there's nothing really for me to argue against. You say "MRAs are pro-rape", but you don't actually mention an MHRM stance or opinion that is actually held by any substantial number of MRAs to demonstrate this. You simply assert it to be so and then pretend like we can have any type of rational discussion on your baseless assertions and strawman arguments. I simply cannot accept,"Because I said so" to be a legitimate stance without any actual support to the argument, whether factual or philosophical. That is why when MRAs argue against feminism, they actually mention REAL feminist stances on certain subjects (like "patriarchy", "teach men not to rape", "#killallmen", "toxic masculinity", the "He for She" campaign, the "SCUM" manifesto, "rape culture", "stare-rape", "catcalling", the "gender pay gap", etc., etc., etc.) MRAs mention these things to say,"This is an actual feminist stance and I disagree with it because.....or I think it has this effect on society because..... orI believe it to be observably and/or statistically false because.....or I believe it to be misandrist because......etc., etc. etc." You'll notice that feminists will rarely say,"I don't believe in patriarchy!" and if they did deny the "patriarchy" hypothesis, then it would be pointless to discuss "patriarchy" in particular with that specific feminist. It would be like if I said,"Feminists like to eat babies! This is true because I said it is!" And then a feminist came up and said,"Well, I don't eat babies and I've never even witnessed such things within the movement!" If that particular feminist doesn't actually eat babies himself/herself and is unaware of such things and I cannot even mention an actual feminist stance that supports this, then what kind of discussion can we actually have? Even if I found few random feminists that said,"I eat babies and eating babies is an essential part of being a feminist!" All that the person I'm having the discussion with would have to say is,"Well, that's one crazy insane b*tch and I don't support any of her claims. Therefor, what else can I say to you except that I agree with you that eating babies is wrong?!" None of the things you've said are representative of anything that I've even seen in the MHRM, much less that I'd even agree with myself, so what else can I say to you except that I hate rape and never want it to happen?

In order for us to have a discussion that doesn't devolve into crazytown, you have to actually discuss with me a typical MRA stance and it has to be one that I actually agree with. It becomes endlessly tedious to argue against your strawman arguments that the MHRM doesn't actually support in reality and that I most definitely do not support myself. The MHRM believes that rape is a real problem in our culture for men AND women. They frequently state statistics to this fact and will frequently express disagreement to the idea of rape. The vast majority of MRAs do not support rape in any experience that I've had watching/reading many of their videos, seminars, and articles and I personally find rape to be incredibly horrible and disgusting. There is not one thing you've said in your OP that actually represents my views or the views of practically anyone that I've actually known to be an MRA. Even if such a person could be found, that person does not represent the MHRM in any substantial way that I've personally witnessed, and either way I disagree with rape personally and so they definitely would not represent me personally.

This is also why I do indeed support and agree with many "equity-feminists" (as I've heard them called), because they tend to actually be against a great deal of feminist ideology and tend to be much nearer to true gender egalitarianism (in my opinion). I don't care if a person decides to take on the term "feminist" if that is their desire, it's the certain views and opinions of many feminists and the typical feminist ideology that I actually disagree with and are against. In fact, it is those certain parts of the ideology, views, and opinions that really disgust me about feminism. If those things were done away with, then I personally would think an advocacy group to support women and stand for their issues would obviously be a very positive thing. I'm not disgusted with gender equity, I'm simply disgusted with a great majority of feminism as it exists today.

At 11/10/2014 2:56:38 AM, neptune1bond wrote:I was so flattered that you thought of me and gave me a "personal invitation" that I decided to come and TRY to give some kind of response. The problem is, there's really no actual argument here for me to refute, Charles. I'm not a conservative, "right-winger", libertarian, or capitalist. Although I do agree with SOME things that some of those groups might say (and some things liberals might say), I am an independent and very strongly so. Although I think that your position on those groups are ridiculous, unfounded, and a tad crazy and I obviously disagree that they support rape at all or some kind of domination in any way that other political parties do not, I still refuse to take the position of defending a political stance that I do not fully agree with (or, at least, mostly agree with) in the first place. It's like if someone said that the Catholic church is run by aliens from the planet "Nano-krypto-klalak". I obviously would disagree with such an insane claim that I've really seen no evidence for (and wouldn't really have interest in either way), but since I'm not really Catholic, I feel no need to spend much time defending them. Since practically your whole post is in regard to a political party that I do not belong to and do not fully support, I cannot reasonably be expected to respond in its defense.

Okay, then I won't expect you to do so.

Now to your claim that all those political groups, "pro-lifers", and MRAs are all one and the same and stand for the same things, well that's also false. Not only am I personally NOT a conservative, capitalist, libertarian, or "right-winger" (but do support the MHRM as far as I understand its actual goals and intentions), but I've also already linked you to a survey in another thread which showed the exact opposite of your claims and that showed MRAs belonging to differing genders/sexualities/political stances/ages/etc. Conservatism, capitalism, and libertarianism are groups that deal with social, political, and economical structures and organization. "Pro-lifers" are people who are against abortion on some level (although not always completely). MRAs deal with issues of human rights and gender equality (most frequently, but not always, as it pertains to all men and boys). Anti-feminism simply means that you disagree with feminism as it exists and is practiced today, whether fully or only in part. A person can belong to one of these groups and none of the others. A person can belong to some of these groups and not the rest. A person can probably belong to all of these groups, but the truth is that there is no "secret conspiracy" to align all of these groups to hate women and support rape and none of these groups actually hate women or support rape in any way that I've seen. Are you aware that there are actually some people who currently associate with feminism and the MHRM? (Usually they are the "equity feminists". Some of the "equity feminists" are pretty good people in my personal opinion.) It's because not all MRAs are even anti-feminists! I could even personally support feminism IF I actually believed that it stood for true gender-egalitarianism (although i would probably not be a feminist myself, I would simply be a gender-egalitarian).

I never claimed that MRAs, pro-lifers, "libertarians", and conservatives are monolithic, only that many members of these groups share an underlying social dominance-oriented mentality.

Basically, there's nothing really for me to argue against. You say "MRAs are pro-rape", but you don't actually mention an MHRM stance or opinion that is actually held by any substantial number of MRAs to demonstrate this. You simply assert it to be so and then pretend like we can have any type of rational discussion on your baseless assertions and strawman arguments.

Cop-out.

In order for us to have a discussion that doesn't devolve into crazytown, you have to actually discuss with me a typical MRA stance and it has to be one that I actually agree with. It becomes endlessly tedious to argue against your strawman arguments that the MHRM doesn't actually support in reality and that I most definitely do not support myself. The MHRM believes that rape is a real problem in our culture for men AND women. They frequently state statistics to this fact and will frequently express disagreement to the idea of rape. The vast majority of MRAs do not support rape ...

I never claimed that they support rape, but rather that their mentality is biased in favor of rapists and capitalists and various social dominance-oriented conservative stances.

This is also why I do indeed support and agree with many "equity-feminists" (as I've heard them called), because they tend to actually be against a great deal of feminist ideology and tend to be much nearer to true gender egalitarianism (in my opinion). I don't care if a person decides to take on the term "feminist" if that is their desire, it's the certain views and opinions of many feminists and the typical feminist ideology that I actually disagree with and are against. In fact, it is those certain parts of the ideology, views, and opinions that really disgust me about feminism. If those things were done away with, then I personally would think an advocacy group to support women and stand for their issues would obviously be a very positive thing. I'm not disgusted with gender equity, I'm simply disgusted with a great majority of feminism as it exists today.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

I never claimed that MRAs, pro-lifers, "libertarians", and conservatives are monolithic, only that many members of these groups share an underlying social dominance-oriented mentality.

You have to actually give a position that they all share that demonstrates this for us to even have a discussion on whether or not that is actually so or is true of the MHRM in any way. Nothing you've said actually mentions a stance that any of those groups actually take. If you make assertions, it is your responsibility to back those assertions up somehow.

Cop-out.

How could it possibly be a cop-out to say that you have to give me an actual MHRM position for us to have any type of rational conversation. The truth is, your saying "cop-out" was actually a cop-out in and of itself. None of the things in your OP actually represent an MHRM stance on the issue of rape and none of it actually represent a position that I could agree with and would therefor could possibly defend, so how can you expect me to actually argue against it? How can you not see how crazy this conversation is right from the beginning? Like I said, MRAs will typically give ACTUAL feminist positions to discuss before they engage in explaining why they believe it is wrong. You're just simply saying,"All MRAs are rapists! RAPISTS I SAY!" without actually giving any rational reason we should even believe such ridiculousness other than because you said so. How can you still not understand how this process works? Can you really not see the logic of asking for an actual MHRM stance that I support that you believe also supports rape before we can have any rational discussion on whether or not your claims are true?

I never claimed that they support rape, but rather that their mentality is biased in favor of rapists and capitalists and various social dominance-oriented conservative stances.

What actual MRA stances on the subjects of gender that I am in support of actually represent this?! "Because I said so" and "because I want it to be this way" and "because I personally disagree with those groups" are JUST NOT GOOD ENOUGH! You have to actually give an argument with some level of substance for us to have a discussion that isn't completely nuts.

I see, so I'm not the only one with what conventional-minded folks would consider an outre, outlandish, crackpot point of view, you in fact subscribe to an outlook that's arguably even more extreme and eccentric than my communist perspective, i.e. that human beings have no kind of moral obligation to give a damn about their neighbor. Indeed, the amoralism of your worldview departs much more radically from the ethical conceptualities and norms of every society that has existed in human history than any of the commie ideas and ideals that I've ever put forward. In fact the core morality of my communism, i.e. a recognition of the ontological and social interrelatedness and interdependence of all human beings and things and the mutual ethical obligations that this ontological truth deontologically enjoins, is also the essence of conventional morality (I simply advocate applying it more inclusively, i.e. to the economic sphere of life where currently the amoralism of capitalism is the norm). That is, morally speaking my communism isn't all that bizarre. However your notion that human beings have no obligation whatsoever to each other definitely makes you more eligible to be consigned to the category of wacko than me. So, in short, thank you for making me look less far-out and kooky and for voluntarily discrediting your own hostile point of view on the OP. This was really quite obliging of you.

Could you take the time to read before responding? You are creating a great straw man. Take the time to read what I said instead of assuming and fitting in your caricatures you enjoy using.

#1) Where did I say human beings should or should not have a moral obligation to one another?I never stated anything related to this yet you are making a statement as if I have. It is a matter of science that human beings do not have an obligation to each other. I can point to a number of studies as well as absolute facts related to the human cerebrum and nervous system. If you attempt to state that human beings have an obligation to each other go ahead and try. The neuroscience doesn't back your opinion because how the central nervous system functions. I don't apply politics or philosophy to neuroscience nor will I begin. As I said you are interested in making moral arguments not practical arguments. Your are offering moral opinions when I am stating the facts.

#2) I never implied I was amoral. I simply realize that morals are fictitious in origin as so many other institution in society. There is no neuroscience behind it other than the fact that human beings have a tendency to be social creatures. With that tendency, human beings protect those similar to themselves because of rapport built, not morals. If human beings were inherently moral there would be no need for religions, laws, and other institutions which seek to punish that of which is deemed "immoral." There would not be different sets of morals either if morals were ingrained in the human being.

#3)Communism is contrary to human natureI am not sure if you are talking about communism in a practical sense(USSR, Mao, Castro) or a theoretical sense. Either way it is contrary to human nature because nirvana does not exist nor is it capable of existing. Why? Demand is infinite because the human cerebrum constantly receives information which a significant amount of said information is conceptualized into problems. I can explain the neuroscience behind this if you wish thoroughly. But simply put even if every single person in the world had good health, was given a free car, free clothes, and free shelter they would still want more.

Communism is an ideology, not just a philosophy since it is a dogma. As an ideology it promises a panacea, panaceas are contrary to human nature since demand is infinite. For your sake, I won't even use a neuroscientist to back up this statement but one of a similar political view. I will simply use the AFL founder Sam Gompers to explain. Gompers: "We do want more, and when it becomes more, we shall still want more. And we shall never cease to demand more until we have received the results of our labor." Demand is infinite and all attempts at nirvana are contrary to human nature.

Neuroscience > PhilosophyNeuroscience 1 Philosophy 0

WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.

On IdeologyCharleslb: My views, primarily some of my metaphysical and theological views, have in fact evolved over the years. My thinking is certainly not as static and ideologically hidebound as you seem to think.

The Fool: It"s the key Ideological presuppositions of Marxism which are static, and they do nothing but cause "static", thus doubly "static" they are.<(8D)

Charleslb: But if I walk and quack like a communist-feminist duck I'm not going to shy away entirely from calling myself a communist and feminist and be accused of concealing the true nature of my point of view.

The Fool: My true nature is that I am an ever evolving being, who is ready to change my believes upon the new or disconfirming information. Infallible ideology has no information which can support or refuted it. And even if it is somehow refuted, an over invested person stops listening to reason.

A dedicated Marxism of Feminist Ideologist will keep creating excuses, and simply do more non-factual theorizing to save, a refuted axiom of the ideology.

E.G.Francis Bacon: "The axioms now in use, having been suggested by scanty an manipular experience and a few particulars of most general occurrence, are made for the most part just large enough to fit and take these in; and therefore it is no wonder if they do not lead to new particulars. And if some opposite instance, not observed or not known before, chances to come in the way, the axiom is rescued an preserved by some frivolous distinction; whereas the truer course would be to correct the axiom. "

On Critical ThinkingCharleslb: This is why one must cultivate the skill and habit of critical thinking.

The Fool: I am sure you have many skill Charles, but critical thinking isn't one of them.<(8D)

1. You argument are weak in factual content.2. You don't give well-structured rational arguments. (I should be able to put it in premise-conclusion, fashion, but it's just a mess)3. You don't avoid unnecessary polemics.4. You don't give counter-argument to refute you position.5. You're a walking fallacy.6. Your comments and question are always loaded. 7. You don't give POC. Fair interpretation of your opponents position. (Almost always a strawman.)8. Over use of rhetoric9. You constantly spewing unfallsifiable information. (Simply saying things that no one else can know if something is true or not, as a justification, is useless.)

Pro-Charleslb: Yes, relying on excessively biased sources (there's no such animal as a perfectly unbiased source) for information is a rather bad idea.

Anti-Charles: Every point of view is a bias, but not all biases are created equal, some are benighted and bigoted while others are enlightened and reasonable.

The Fool: And 1<(8D)

Charleslb: Some of us have also engaged in some critical thinking and come to the conclusion that the feminist point of view is correct and enlightened.

The Fool: Feminist especially post-modernism is ANTI-critical thinking, even anti-logic, as analytical philosophy was considered too masculine.

I hope you are not confusing, "literary criticism" with "Critical thinking". Or even critical thinking with general criticism. There is no "sarcasm" or "rhetoric" in critical thinking. If anything its Anti-rhetoric.

Notice how we hardly ever see live formal debate from feminist? Only the occasional man. Right? That's because Feminist theory cannot stand up to rational criticism. There is no way in HELL they can argue for Patriarchy theory against any Rational opponent. That"s part of why feminist propaganda is trying to Re-brand feminism as simply the believe in "gender equality". They are backtracking now.

But Feminist Theory is the fuel in the fire, and has been their justification for the last 30 years of male demonization. And feminism is so large an so ingrained that it's going to take them a long time to Reform.

Communism as a Conservative IdeologyThe Fool: One may argue that, well, communalism in that way is a kind of conservatism in itself. We all want it to be the "final answer", but the final answer may be ever ongoing.

Charleslb:"Conservatism" is actually quite the misnomer, as it's not at all about being conservative in a dictionary sense of the word, or one's attitude toward change. The philosopher Ted Honderich makes an excellent and thorough case for this opinion,

The Fool: Lol, I am not that niave. But that it"s conservative, in that its axioms are fundamentalist and it doesn"t handle criticism well, an so it has a totalitarianism anti-freedom mentality about it. Its thinks it"s the Final Answer, and so not further answer need to be sought out.

On Abortion"The Fool: I completely disagree with the feminist ideological justifications.Charleslb: Correction, you disagree with academic feminist thinking that's antithetical to your own point of view. Well, that's your prerogative.

The Fool: Correction, Academic feminist and Conservative positions on abortion are both baseless self-righteous indignations.

What makes an organism a part of the "moral community" is the capacity for sentience, and thus suffering. Therefore if a fetus reaches sentience, then it ought be protected. That why we have limits to how far along a pregnancy can be to have a legal abortion in Canada. That limit is based upon an estimation of when we the fetus becomes SENTIENT.

Did you know that before?<(89)

The Fool: My personal view is that it's a child when it becomes conscious, and if it reached that point then unless it will kill her she is obligated to save her own child

Charleslb: So you indeed think that it would be legitimate to severely restrict the access of women to abortion.

The Fool: Severely restrict access? I don't consider that severe. Secondly, The presupposition is that they are "owed", the right to have an abortion. Who owes them that? You? Me? Is that a Right men have as well?

They are not being restricted access, they are being granted the Privilege of having access. And they deserve that less than a child deserves to live.

Or perhaps you think such access is worth more than life itself???

Perhaps you haven't thought it through?

If you get rid of an obligation for one to save somebodies life when they can, then you are forced to accept that Nobody is ever obligated to save anyone ever. So much for socialism.

Are you Really willing to accept that as a Moral Principle?<(8O)

Against The Ideologist

Choose wisely. Choose....... wisely.<(89)

"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL

At 11/9/2014 4:13:01 PM, charleslb wrote:Dear pro-rapists of the conservative and masculinist camps (which tellingly do overlap quite a lot), do by all means carry on rationalizing taking your anti-feminism to the extreme of being misogynistic excusers of rape and its perpetrators. The more you try to make allowances for sexual assault, the more you dig your heels into your pro-rapist reasoning, the more you do the job of discrediting your viewpoint pretty much on your own. And, if I might be permitted to go off for the remainder of this post on a bit of a tangent, I'll have you know that it's not lost on some of us that it's the same cognitive orientation that inclines you-all to support rapists rather than victims that also predisposes you to side with rapacious capitalists rather than their working-class victims, to support a predatory socioeconomic system and status quo oriented in favor of the interests of capitalist alpha males and their penchant for raping and pillaging the planet, ravishing and brutalizing its riches, economies, and peoples.

You got a big problem here: the people who tend to be rapists tend to be the same people who LOSE from free market capitalism.

Poor, non whites are MUCH more likely to be rapists than rich, whites. So, this pretty much destroys the entire crux of your conservatives defend rapists and capitalists line of thought since they is an INVERSE relationship with likelihood of being a successful capitalist and likelihood of being a rapist.

Yep, it's no surprise at all that an insensitively pro-rapist mentality is frequently all of a piece with a pro-capitalist (euphemistically also known as a "conservative" or "libertarian") mental makeup. Mm-hmm, everyone, please do note that it's predominantly young "libertarian" males and angry white middle-aged pro-capitalist conservatives who are tellingly given to excusing or denying rape. Let's not gloss over the cognitive significance of this, of the cognitive cognateness of the pro-rapist and pro-capitalist perspectives for understanding where the right's boosterism of capitalism really comes from.

Once again. Not accurate. Rapists tend not to be those rich young white guys that you hate so much. They tend to be the kind of guy that commies and socialists like you defend: poor non white guys.

In fact, conservatives tend to be among the most ANTI rape because the guys who rape are the kind of guys conservatives aren't.

Well, to spell it out, the conservative's pro-capitalism indeed stems from and manifests a primitively masculine "rugged individualism", an identification with the archetype of the dominant masculine rugged individual in his modern incarnation of the dominant capitalist. This of course largely explains why conservatives are such inveterate apologists for capitalist fat cats and a socioeconomic system that gives them license to bend the working class over. Quite simply, the conservative's paleo, social dominance-oriented mentality relates to and throws in with the strong and the dominant, who today are of course the economically strong & dominant, i.e. the rich, and looks down on those perceived to be weak, e.g. the poor, welfare recipients, Third-World peoples, women, rape victims, et al.

Again. This pretty much is discredited by the fact that rapists tend to be LESS economically successful than non rapists.

You see, usually, rape is about horny men who w/o self control. It is not, as feminists tell us, about power. If rape was about power, it would be rich white guys with power who raped.

Instead, it is the opposite because rape is about sex and not power.

Oh sure, he dissembles it behind hackneyed legitimating rhetoric about freedom and free enterprise, but subconsciously the average conservative and right-libertarian in fact has the esteem of a caveman for dominance, and it's indeed this unevolved aspect of his psychology that causes him to sometimes also sympathize with rapists, rape being an act of dominance, an assertion of power over someone weaker. Capitalists, rapists, a dominant military power such as the United States, they all represent the dominance vicariously admired by right-wingers, and it's precisely this vicarious admiration that motivates their bias and much of their politics. Yes, scratch the surface and one finds this subconscious idolization of alphaness sublimated not only in the American right-winger's staunch proponency of private property and enterprise, his defense of "men's rights", and his patriotism, but in a host of other political positions. For instance, take their position on abortion. Behind the moralistic right-to-life rhetoric is the desire of rightists to impose their social dominance on women's bodies, reproductive choices, and sexuality. The outlawing of abortion would indeed be a rape-like assertion of power (by political means) and violation of a woman's sovereignty over her body. Mm-hmm, seeking to ban abortion is ultimately just another way that the folks in the conservative camp express their need for power & dominance, another way they reveal their psychological affinity with rapists and capitalists. One could make similar observations about the "family values", law & order, pro-capital punishment, guns rights, and pro-military views of Republican types, but I won't digress.

I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the MRM and right wing aren't really related. Actually, almost all MRAs I know/know of are liberals. I'm a libertarian and a traditionalist and i hate the MRM because they are basically just mirror feminists.

In short and in sum, the root of the simpatico-ness of rapists, capitalists, and their conservative/"libertarian" defenders is the psychological fact that they're all what social psychologists term high on the social dominator scale individuals. Rather than getting caught up in arguing against the social dominator's sophistical logic and sanctimonious rhetoric about men's rights, capitalist's rights, fetal rights, etc., one should instead steadfastly focus on addressing the true mentality underlying their politics. Yes, always bear in mind that "conservative" and "libertarian" aren't merely terms for political affiliations, they're mentalities, of a quite unevolved and socially dangerous nature.

I see, so I'm not the only one with what conventional-minded folks would consider an outre, outlandish, crackpot point of view, you in fact subscribe to an outlook that's arguably even more extreme and eccentric than my communist perspective, i.e. that human beings have no kind of moral obligation to give a damn about their neighbor. Indeed, the amoralism of your worldview departs much more radically from the ethical conceptualities and norms of every society that has existed in human history than any of the commie ideas and ideals that I've ever put forward. In fact the core morality of my communism, i.e. a recognition of the ontological and social interrelatedness and interdependence of all human beings and things and the mutual ethical obligations that this ontological truth deontologically enjoins, is also the essence of conventional morality (I simply advocate applying it more inclusively, i.e. to the economic sphere of life where currently the amoralism of capitalism is the norm). That is, morally speaking my communism isn't all that bizarre. However your notion that human beings have no obligation whatsoever to each other definitely makes you more eligible to be consigned to the category of wacko than me. So, in short, thank you for making me look less far-out and kooky and for voluntarily discrediting your own hostile point of view on the OP. This was really quite obliging of you.

Could you take the time to read before responding? You are creating a great straw man. Take the time to read what I said instead of assuming and fitting in your caricatures you enjoy using.

#1) Where did I say human beings should or should not have a moral obligation to one another?I never stated anything related to this yet you are making a statement as if I have...

I quote: "... You have an assumption that human beings have an obligation to other human beings. I disagree with this profusely ... Your premise to all your points above is that human beings have an obligation to each other to which I have no agreement with at all. You also have a series of other assumptions that I disagree with as well but this is the most notable. You are making moral arguments when I am interested in practical arguments."

But I see, you're now going to attempt to play hair-splitting games like a sophist or a lawyer.

#2) I never implied I was amoral. I simply realize that morals are fictitious in origin as so many other institution in society. There is no neuroscience behind it ...

This is just nihilism rationalized with neuroscience.

#3)Communism is contrary to human natureI am not sure if you are talking about communism in a practical sense(USSR, Mao, Castro) or a theoretical sense. Either way it is contrary to human nature because nirvana does not exist nor is it capable of existing...

This is merely the nirvana fallacy, aka the perfect solution fallacy. Well, I don't claim that communism will usher in a perfect existential state of affairs, merely a considerably better one.

Communism is an ideology, not just a philosophy since it is a dogma...

Nope, communists needn't be dogmatic in the slightest. There's in fact nothing inherent in being a communist that should make one an intolerant ideologue.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.